RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF GOD 2 Timothy 2:15

[homwardbound]

I understand how strange this must sound if you have never studied it before. I wiil just state up front what I believe the Bible teaches and I will give you scripture for EVERYTHING to show WHY I believe that there was an Old law for the Jews in the Old Testament and it lasted until Jesus died on the cross. The New Testament is called the “Last will and Testament” of Jesus Christ. And just as today, if a man has a “will”, that will is not in force until he dies. After his death, his will comes into effect. This is exactly what Hebrews 9:16-17 says. And that is what happened when Jesus died on the cross. His “NEW” Will came into effect—the New Testament. It is called the law of Christ or law of faith. Romans 3:27. The Old Testament law of the Jews was “exclusive”—for Jews ONLY. The New Testament law is “INCLUSIVE””—for EVERYONE, Jews AND gentiles alike.

The old law is often called the law of works” because of all of the animal sacrifices, , offerings, and many, many requirements of holy days, feast days, festivals, sabbath days and many more such things. The book of Galatians talks extensively about the “works” of the law. When you read those words, you need to read above the verse and below the verse, sometimes the whole chapter, to get the “context, that explains what kind of works he is talking about. Don’t assume! Know what the writer is meaning. Did you read the “thread”?
Start with Deuteronomy 5. This is where Moses recounts the story of how God made a “covenant” (agreement-law) with His people, the Jews when they came out of Egypt. (Exodus20). He lists the 10 commandments as part of that law, but it was much more than just the 10 commandments. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, and Deuteronomy contain the Old Testament law that God made with the Jews. You can read it in those books. That Old Testament law lasted 1500 years. But even in the Old Testament, the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that ONE DAY, God would make a NEW covenant (law) with His people—NOT LIKE THE FIRST COVENANT He made with them after they came out of Egypt.
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming says the Lord when I will make a NEW COVENANT with the house of Israel…”. God never intended for the Old law to be permanent.
If you will read Hebrews 8 in the New testament, you will read that same prophesy of Jeremiah quoted to show that the New Testament is the covenant that Jeremiah’prophesied would come. His prophesy was fulfilled in the New Testament. These are 2 different laws —both from God; they fulfilled the purpose for which they were created.

Galatians 4:24 Paul says that the purpose of the Old Testament law was to BRING US TO Christ. He calls it a “tutor.” But after Christ had come, we no longer were under the “tutor”?or old law.

Galatians 4:24 tells us there are TWO COVENANTS—one was the OLD TESTAMENT LAW that was delivered by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the other was the NEW TESTAMENT LAW OF CHRIST, also called the law of faith. Romans 3:27. Almost the entire book of Galatians is contrasting these two laws. Also, the book of Hebrews says such things as, beginning in Hebrews 7, God has “annulled” the former commandments. Verse 18, and has brought in a BETTER COVENANT ( hope) verses 19 & 22.. Chapter 8, verse 7, He talks about the “FIRST COVENANT ( Old Testament) and the “SECOND” covenant ( New Testament) and THEN, He quotes Jeremiah 31:31 showing that this “ New” covenant is a fulfillment of that prophecy. Verse 13 is very important. “ A New Covenant, He has made the first ( covenant) OBSOLETE, now what is becoming obsolete and growing “old” is ready to VANISH AWAY!”

I tried to further explain in what I wrote in the thread and post # 8. I hope you will study and meditate on the scriptures .

Thank you for your sincerely studying to know God and risen Son Jesus for you to see new and not be under Law anymore
Yes, Yes, Yes from Father and Son in love to us all in mercy and truth given us by Father for us through Son to us all
Woe is me to see Isaiah 6:1-7

 

[posthuman]

Nor does it say that there are not two types of laws:
1. the Mosaic sacrificial system that foreshadowed and was fulfilled by Christ's atonement, and
2. Messiah's moral law of love that is eternal truth.

it also doesn't say the sky isn't a purple cow

 

[Inquisitor]

I’ll let the Holy Spirit do the talking for me.

HEBREWS 7:12
“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity, THERE IS ALSO A CHANGE OF THE LAW.”

This is the argument the Spirit is making: Under the OLD LAW of Israel, a man could NOT be a priest unless he was from the tribe of Levi. But Jesus IS a High priest FOREVER, according to Hebrews 6:20. So, how can Jesus who is NOT from the tribe of Levi, be a High Priest? Simple, the law was changed. The Old Testament is no longer governing us. We are under the law of Christ in the NEW Testament. Under the NEW law, Jesus who is from the tribe of Judah can be and IS our High Priest.

Your taking on the historical, traditional church.

Most will not understand what you are talking about.

The law was a temporary institution; your correct.

I wish you all the best.

 

[GWH]

it also doesn't say the sky isn't a purple cow

But there ARE two types of law, and Messiah's law of love IS eternal.
Sorry you apparently do not agree.

 

[posthuman]

But there ARE two types of law, and Messiah's law of love IS eternal.
Sorry you apparently do not agree.

i don't agree with the logic, lol
because one verse doesn't say something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that thing exists.

if you're about to tell me that some of Moses law is still binding but some isn't, i don't agree with that either - when either the OT or NT speaks of 'the Law' it speaks of it as one indivisible unit, such that if you break any part of it, you are guilty of all of it.

we are either under the entire Law of Moses, or we are entirely not under it, at all.

bit is there a righteousness that was before the Law, is in the Law, and is yet after the Law?
yes; i agree - - God is Love

 

[GWH]

i don't agree with the logic, lol
because one verse doesn't say something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that thing exists.

if you're about to tell me that some of Moses law is still binding but some isn't, i don't agree with that either - when either the OT or NT speaks of 'the Law' it speaks of it as one indivisible unit, such that if you break any part of it, you are guilty of all of it.

we are either under the entire Law of Moses, or we are entirely not under it, at all.

bit is there a righteousness that was before the Law, is in the Law, and is yet after the Law?
yes; i agree - - God is Love

Exactly! I was replying to post #19 saying:

[Karlon:] God has not changed His laws. never.
Hebrews 13:8- "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today & forever"!

[you:] That says God does not change. it doesn't say the law doesn't change.

I expressed agreement by adding:

Nor does it say that there are not two types of laws:
1. the Mosaic sacrificial system that foreshadowed and was fulfilled by Christ's atonement [and thus not binding], and
2. Messiah's moral law of love that is eternal truth [and who is the HS (1John 4:8 & 5:6].

Glad we cleared that up!

 

[posthuman]

Exactly! I was replying to post #19 saying:

[Karlon:] God has not changed His laws. never.
Hebrews 13:8- "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today & forever"!

[you:] That says God does not change. it doesn't say the law doesn't change.

I expressed agreement by adding:

Nor does it say that there are not two types of laws:
1. the Mosaic sacrificial system that foreshadowed and was fulfilled by Christ's atonement [and thus not binding], and
2. Messiah's moral law of love that is eternal truth [and who is the HS (1John 4:8 & 5:6].

Glad we cleared that up!

**agree**

 

[Soyeong]

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to walk in His way are eternally and cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160) and the only way that eternal instructions for how to be a doer of God's righteousness can be ended would be by first ending God's righteousness, which is also true for God's other character traits. God could give two people different sets of instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness in various situations, but all of those instructions have the same character trait in common and all are eternally and cumulatively valid for anyone who has the goal of knowing God and Jesus by being a doer of righteousness.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multiple that came up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, and there would be no point in spreading the Gospel as a light to the Gentiles if the Mosaic Law was only intended to obeyed by Jews.

Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (! John 2:6), so it would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to become a follower of Christ while not wanting to become a follower of what he taught.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20). Likewise, if the Mosaic Law was only intended to be obeyed by Jews, then Gentiles would have no need for what Jesus accomplished through his ministry or the cross and would have no need for grace or for salvation from transgressing the Mosaic Law.

The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify everything that he accomplished or so that we could be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from or that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo). So Jesus after Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-19, he then immediately proceeded to fulfill it throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it. Jesus said nothing that alluded to his death on the cross in Matthew 5, so you should seek to understand what he meant in the way that his audience would have understood him rather than retroactively insert an event that his audience had no knowledge of. Again, the way to believe in what Jesus finished on the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him that he was the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with the concept of the list of the charges that were against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with his dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to with nailing any laws to the cross. The freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom from lawfulness but the freedom from lawlessness.

I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to anything that Christ taught. Christ quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that has come from the mouth of God, so again there is no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is something other or contrary to anything that God has spoken. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matter of the Mosaic Law. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted the Book of the Law with "works of the law", and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to the Mosaic Law. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Galatians should not be interpreted in a way that turns it against being followers of Christ.

 

[GWH]

The Mosaic Law included two categories of commands:

1. Moral laws, such as the first nine of the Ten Commandments, that were repromulgated in the NT and subsumed under Christ's command to love everyone (Matt. 5:40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:8, Gal. 5:14), and

2. Religious laws, including the Sabbath regulations, that formed the sacrificial system, which foreshadowed the atonement of Christ and were ended when he died (Col. 2:13-23, Heb. 10:1).

Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the first category.
Galatians 2:11-14 indicates that Galatians 3:10-12 referred to the second category primarily,
although both types are included when speaking of being saved by faith (Gal. 3:21-24).

 

[Beckworth]

I agree with your dividing or interpretation of Paul, but I would clarify that he does not want people
to think they are saved by obeying innumerable moral dictates but rather via faith in Christ that is credited as righteousness (Romans 3:21-5:1) and allows His Holy Spirit to love through them (Rom. 5:5, Gal. 5:22-23) as they grow toward moral maturity (Eph. 4:11-24).

If this was a courtroom, and I were a lawyer, I would have to “OBJECT” on the grounds of “SPECULATION.” Lol

I don’t think you know “what Paul wants people to THINK.. “. I believe you are stating what YOU want people to think. By calling them “innumerable moral dictates” I’m guessing you mean “works.”
Romans 3- 5. ONLY says that we are not saved by the works of the old law.. (v.28). These are specific as to the kind of works that do not save us. It is not talking about the “works of God”., like faith, (John 6:29) Which DO save us you cannot “lump” all works together; there are at least 5 different kinds of “works” talked about in the New Testament.

Paul also says that keeping the commandments of God (innumerable moral dictates) is WHAT MATTERS. 1 Cor. 7:19, and Romans 2:12-in the same book, just a few verse before chapter 3, Paul says, “It’s the DOERS OF THE LAW who will be JUSTIFIED ( saved). ( DOING innumerable moral dictates)
In 1 Cor. 2;8 PAUL talks about OBEDIENCE to the truth. ( moral dictates)
verse 10, PAUL says we are to “WORK what is good. ( innumerable moral dictates).

Paul was not eliminating “Works”. It’s evident that he taught “ works” , obedience to God’s innumerable moral dictates, were NECESSARY for justification.

It seems what you said was trying to support your “faith only” doctrine, but from an examination of all of Paul’s writings, he does not support salvation by faith “alone”. He believes in faith—yes! As we all do . Just NOT faith alone. Paul also believed in OBEDIENCE TO God’s commandments—ALL OF THEM—not just the ones about faith.

 

[Dino246]

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to walk in His way are eternally and cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160) and the only way that eternal instructions for how to be a doer of God's righteousness can be ended would be by first ending God's righteousness, which is also true for God's other character traits. God could give two people different sets of instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness in various situations, but all of those instructions have the same character trait in common and all are eternally and cumulatively valid for anyone who has the goal of knowing God and Jesus by being a doer of righteousness.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multiple that came up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, and there would be no point in spreading the Gospel as a light to the Gentiles if the Mosaic Law was only intended to obeyed by Jews.

Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (! John 2:6), so it would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to become a follower of Christ while not wanting to become a follower of what he taught.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20). Likewise, if the Mosaic Law was only intended to be obeyed by Jews, then Gentiles would have no need for what Jesus accomplished through his ministry or the cross and would have no need for grace or for salvation from transgressing the Mosaic Law.

The reason why Jesus established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify everything that he accomplished or so that we could be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from or that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Mosaic Law (Jeremiah 31:33).

"To fulfill the law" means "to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment" (NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo). So Jesus after Jesus said that he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-19, he then immediately proceeded to fulfill it throughout the rest of the chapter by teaching how to correctly obey it. Jesus said nothing that alluded to his death on the cross in Matthew 5, so you should seek to understand what he meant in the way that his audience would have understood him rather than retroactively insert an event that his audience had no knowledge of. Again, the way to believe in what Jesus finished on the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law.

In Matthew 27:37, they nailed a handwritten ordinance to Christ's cross that announced the charge that was against him that he was the King of the Jews. This fits perfectly with the concept of the list of the charges that were against us being nailed to Christ's cross and with his dying in our place to pay the penalty for our sins, but has nothing to with nailing any laws to the cross. The freedom that we have in Christ is not the freedom from lawfulness but the freedom from lawlessness.

I see no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is something other than or contrary to anything that Christ taught. Christ quoted three times from Deuteronomy in order to defeat the temptations of Satan, which included saying that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that has come from the mouth of God, so again there is no justification for thinking that the Law of Christ is something other or contrary to anything that God has spoken. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matter of the Mosaic Law. In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law, and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith, in Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted the Book of the Law with "works of the law", and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he said that our faith upholds the Mosaic Law in contrast with saying that "works of the law" are not of faith, so that phrase does not refer to the Mosaic Law. Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example and Galatians should not be interpreted in a way that turns it against being followers of Christ.

Yada yada yada.

 

[Dino246]

The Mosaic Law included two categories of commands:

1. Moral laws, such as the first nine of the Ten Commandments, that were repromulgated in the NT and subsumed under Christ's command to love everyone (Matt. 5:40, John 13:35, Rom. 13:8, Gal. 5:14), and

2. Religious laws, including the Sabbath regulations, that formed the sacrificial system, which foreshadowed the atonement of Christ and were ended when he died (Col. 2:13-23, Heb. 10:1).

Jeremiah 31:33 refers to the first category.
Galatians 2:11-14 indicates that Galatians 3:10-12 referred to the second category primarily,
although both types are included when speaking of being saved by faith (Gal. 3:21-24).

Which verse(s) define(s) this distinction? Those you mention don’t do so.

 

[GWH]

If this was a courtroom, and I were a lawyer, I would have to “OBJECT” on the grounds of “SPECULATION.” Lol

I don’t think you know “what Paul wants people to THINK.. “. I believe you are stating what YOU want people to think. By calling them “innumerable moral dictates” I’m guessing you mean “works.”
Romans 3- 5. ONLY says that we are not saved by the works of the old law.. (v.28). These are specific as to the kind of works that do not save us. It is not talking about the “works of God”., like faith, (John 6:29) Which DO save us you cannot “lump” all works together; there are at least 5 different kinds of “works” talked about in the New Testament.

Paul also says that keeping the commandments of God (innumerable moral dictates) is WHAT MATTERS. 1 Cor. 7:19, and Romans 2:12-in the same book, just a few verse before chapter 3, Paul says, “It’s the DOERS OF THE LAW who will be JUSTIFIED ( saved). ( DOING innumerable moral dictates)
In 1 Cor. 2;8 PAUL talks about OBEDIENCE to the truth. ( moral dictates)
verse 10, PAUL says we are to “WORK what is good. ( innumerable moral dictates).

Paul was not eliminating “Works”. It’s evident that he taught “ works” , obedience to God’s innumerable moral dictates, were NECESSARY for justification.

It seems what you said was trying to support your “faith only” doctrine, but from an examination of all of Paul’s writings, he does not support salvation by faith “alone”. He believes in faith—yes! As we all do . Just NOT faith alone. Paul also believed in OBEDIENCE TO God’s commandments—ALL OF THEM—not just the ones about faith.

I understand that what you think Paul wants is different from what I think.

I think Paul wants believers to understand that statements such as Rom. 2:12 mean that obeying the law perfectly
is impossible, which is why God provided salvation via faith per Rom. 3:12-5:1.

And I think Paul wants believers to understand that statements including 1 Cor. 7:19 should be harmonized with
commands/teachings in Matt. 5:40, John 13:35, Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14.

You are correct that Paul commands and commends good works, because they will follow saving faith (Eph. 2:8-11, Jam. 2:17-18).
You are incorrect to understand my doctrine as being "faith only" rather than "faith first" aka "don't put the cart before the horse".

 

[mailmandan]

You are correct that Paul commands and commends good works, because they will follow saving faith (Eph. 2:8-11, Jam. 2:17-18).
You are incorrect to understand my doctrine as being "faith only" rather than "faith first" aka "don't put the cart before the horse".

Yes, good works glorify our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16) and are good and profitable/beneficial unto men (Titus 3:8) yet we are still saved FOR good works (Ephesians 2:10) and not by good works. It is a cart before the horse issue. Man is saved through faith in Jesus Christ "alone" (apart from the merit of works - Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8-9) yet genuine faith does not remain "alone" (apart from the presence of works - James 2:14-26). *Perfect Harmony*

 

[Beckworth]

The Hebrew word "yada" refers to intimate relationships/knowledge gained by experience such as with Genesis 4:1 where Adam knew (yada) Eve, she conceived, and gave birth to Cain. God's way is the way to know (yada) Him and Jesus by embodying His likeness through being a doer of His character traits, which is the narrow way to eternal life (John 17:3). For example, in Genesis 18:19, God knew (yada) Abraham that he would teach his children and those of his household to walk in His way by being doers of righteousness and justice that the Lord might bring to him all that He has promised. In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that He and Israel might know (yada) Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to graciously teach us how to know (yada) God and Jesus, which is His gift of eternal life.

God's character traits are eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to walk in His way are eternally and cumulatively valid regardless of which covenant someone is under. For example, God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), therefore all of God's righteous laws are also eternal (Psalms 119:160) and the only way that eternal instructions for how to be a doer of God's righteousness can be ended would be by first ending God's righteousness, which is also true for God's other character traits. God could give two people different sets of instructions for how to be a doer of His righteousness in various situations, but all of those instructions have the same character trait in common and all are eternally and cumulatively valid for anyone who has the goal of knowing God and Jesus by being a doer of righteousness.

In Exodus 12:38, there was a mixed multiple that came up out of Egypt with the Israelites, so there were Gentiles at the foot of Sinai.

In Matthew 4:15-23, Christ began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message, and there would be no point in spreading the Gospel as a light to the Gentiles if the Mosaic Law was only intended to obeyed by Jews.

Christ also set a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and that those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way that he walked (! John 2:6), so it would be contradictory for a Gentile to want to become a follower of Christ while not wanting to become a follower of what he taught.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20). Likewise, if the Mosaic Law was only intended to be obeyed by Jews, then Gentiles would have no need for what Jesus accomplished through his ministry or the cross and would have no need for grace or for salvation from transgressing the Mosaic Law.

I find Your reasoning fallacious. For example, just because God and His character are eternal, does not mean that His laws are eternal. That is not even logical. And you have nothing to prove or even suggest such a thing in the scriptures. In Genisus 17, God says the “covenant” is “EVERLASTING”. This is what
Some sources say about the word “everlasting” or forever: “ The word “everlasting” in languages like the Hebrew and Greek” does not always mean forever or endless duration in the Bible. It can also refer to a long, indefinite period, or an “age” or lasting era.” Genesis 17 is an excellent example of this. Although God describes the covenant as EVERLASTING, Jeremiah 31:31 proves that it is NOT everlasting. He prophesies that ONE DAY, God will make a New covenant with His people and It will NOT BE LIKE THAT FIRST COVENANT that He made with them when He led them out of Egypt. Clearly those are 2 DIFFERENNT covenants. What must be shown or proven is that one was done away and only one remains in effect for the people of God today. That was the purpose of this thread and I believe I have shown that WITH SCRIPTURE to prove it.

Also, in Genesis 17, God says the covenant of circumcision is “EVERLASTING.” But Paul tells Christian’s in the New Testament that circumcision is “NOTHING!” Galatians 5:6 The apostle Paul would NEVER tell Christian’s to ignore circumcision if it was required by God. Clearly, God’s laws are NOT ETERNAL.

In Matthew 5, Jesus is not merely, “adding on to His laws”. He is CHANGJNG THEM. Divorce in the Old Testament was for “ANY CAUSE.” But Jesus changed that! He says from now on, there is only one”ONE” cause for divorce—and that is adultery. That is NOT ADDING TO”. That is CHANGING! He also said, you could take revenge in the Old law—“AN EYE FOR AN EYE.” But not so in the New covenant. We are not to seek revenge. We are to turn the other cheek. That is not “embellishing” a law—that is CHANGING THE LAW!! You may refuse to believe it but I don’t think you do not understand it.

You did not represent Psalm 119:160 accurately. The verse does not say God’s LAWS are eternal. It says God’s word is TRUTH! The word truth is not the same definition as “eternal.” It also says God’s righteous JUDGEMENTS endures forever. Although those may be connected closely to His LAWS, or covenants, they are not the same thing. God is righteous forever and whatvever judgement He renders is righteous—always. God’s righteousness does not depend on His laws being eternal. How did you reach that conclusion? God is righteous regardless whether He decides to change His laws or not. God can do whatever He wants to with HIS LAWS. He MADE them! He can certainly CHANGE THEM, OR DO AWAY WITH THEM if He wants to and it does not change his righteousness or HIS eternal nature at all! That is falsehood.

The fact that the mixed multitude is always mentioned separately shows that they were not considered part of the Children of Abraham. Some of them may have been Jewish proselytes but probably they were gentiles who had also been slaves in Pharoah’s Egypt who just left at the same time with the Jews. Regardless, nothing is said or indicated by Moses that this covenant was made with them. When Moses was talking to the Jews about the covenant God was making with them, he referred to “OUR FATHERS” . I know by this he was talking to the Jews. There is NO EVIDENCE that the mixed multitude was included in this covenant with God and to say such is true is a falsehood And misleading people.

I do not want to be unkind, but to tell you the truth, there is so much error in the rest of your post, I feel it would take me days and a 20 page thesis to refute or explain it all! I may come back to it later when I am more “rested”, but now, this post is long enough. Suffice it to say, I disagree with your reasoning and your conclusions.

 

[Beckworth]

I understand that what you think Paul wants is different from what I think.

I think Paul wants believers to understand that statements such as Rom. 2:12 mean that obeying the law perfectly
is impossible, which is why God provided salvation via faith per Rom. 3:12-5:1.

And I think Paul wants believers to understand that statements including 1 Cor. 7:19 should be harmonized with
commands/teachings in Matt. 5:40, John 13:35, Romans 13:8 and Galatians 5:14.

You are correct that Paul commands and commends good works, because they will follow saving faith (Eph. 2:8-11, Jam. 2:17-18).
You are incorrect to understand my doctrine as being "faith only" rather than "faith first" aka "don't put the cart before the horse".

I apologize if I misrepresented you.

 

[GWH]

I apologize if I misrepresented you.

I hope that means we are in agreement now.

 

[Soyeong]

Hmm.... as I read Scripture, I see that those who choose to live by the Law (even today) shall be judged by the Law. Meaning they must surely keep the Laws of the Old Testament. The only one that I am aware of that has passed is blood sacrifice.

James, Chapter 2 is one place this is spoken of.
Galatians, Chapter 3 speaks of those who live under the Law must obey the Law. It also establishes the "new Law" of the New Covenant: The Law of Faith.

In Romans 2:12-14, it says that only the doers of the law will be justified and that believing Gentiles are by nature doers of it, so it is far superior to be judged by the law than to perish apart from it.

In James 2:1-11, he was speaking to people who had sinned by committing favoritism and was encouraging them to repent and to do a better job of obeying God’s law more consistently. He was not saying that if they are going to take the option of choosing to obey God’s command against committing adultery, then they must also obey God’s commands against committing murder and favoritism and obey the rest of God’s commands.

In Galatians 3:10, Paul saying that cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything in the Book of the Law is encouraging us to continue to do everything in the Book of the Law. He did not give the option to avoid being cursed by living in complete rebellion against God’s law.

Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey God’s law by word and by example and the reason why he established the New Covenant was not in order to nullify anything that he spent his ministry teaching or in order for us to be free to continue to have the same lawlessness that caused the New Covenant to be needed in the first place, but rather the New Covenant still involves following God’s law (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of God’s law, and in Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God’s law, so there is not a new law of faith as opposed to an old law that shouldn’t be trusted.

 

[Dino246]

In Romans 2:12-14, it says that only the doers of the law will be justified and that believing Gentiles are by nature doers of it, so it is far superior to be judged by the law than to perish apart from it.

The text does not say at all that it is better to be judged by the law. You invented that.

In Galatians 3:10, Paul saying that cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything in the Book of the Law is encouraging us to continue to do everything in the Book of the Law. He did not give the option to avoid being cursed by living in complete rebellion against God’s law.

Paul did not encourage us to continue to do everything in the book of the law, and he said nothing about living in complete rebellion to the law. Again, you have added to the text.

He quoted a verse from the law in order to illustrate that partial adherence to the law is irrelevant. He also said very clearly that the Galatians did not obtain the Spirit by adherence to the law, and implied that adherence to the law adds nothing to what they already have by faith.

It is astounding how thoroughly you have misunderstood the text. Perhaps you need to read the letter to the Galatians several times so you start to understand.

 

[GWH]

The text does not say at all that it is better to be judged by the law. You invented that.


Paul did not encourage us to continue to do everything in the book of the law, and he said nothing about living in complete rebellion to the law. Again, you have added to the text.

He quoted a verse from the law in order to illustrate that partial adherence to the law is irrelevant. He also said very clearly that the Galatians did not obtain the Spirit by adherence to the law, and implied that adherence to the law adds nothing to what they already have by faith.

It is astounding how thoroughly you have misunderstood the text. Perhaps you need to read the letter to the Galatians several times so you start to understand.

Even better, memorize Romans 13:8-10.